I feel as though the more I read of Great Expectations the more similarities I see between the main character Pip and the main character of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff. While reading chapter 44 from this week’s reading one part in particular stuck out to me. It is the moment when Pip finally confesses his love for Estella. He says, “Estella, you know I love you. You know I have loved you long and dearly.” This immediately makes me think back to our reading of Wuthering Heights and how Heathcliff no matter what, continues to love Catherine. This is something Pip and Heathcliff have in common, they try to make themselves into gentlemen for the women they love and even though they know it might be impossible for them to be together, they continue to love them regardless. Although, it may sound endearing that these men will always love these women, I can’t help but think it seems to be a little more of obsession or infatuation than real love. A little later on in chapter 44 Pip says, “I know. I know I have no hope that I shall call you mine, Estella. I am ignorant what may become of me very soon, how poor I may be, or where I may go. Still, I love you. I have loved you ever since I first saw you in this house.” It seems to me that Pip is just ponding over Estella even though he knows she’ll never love him back. Even still, his love for her is overpowering and he feels the need to express his feelings for her, no matter how desperate he seems. In Heathcliff’s case, he knows Catherine loves him but because of social and economic reasons and perhaps even her own selfish reasons, she decides to marry Edgar instead. It seems that both Estella and Catherine are women who have a powerful hold over men like Pip and Heathcliff and it causes them to act out in ways that might mean to be loving but in the end comes off as obsessive or neurotic.

Upon reading the remainder of “Great Expectations”, I couldn’t help but to compare the Jack with Heathcliff. To start, both the Jack and Heathcliff are of a wealthy status and use that high status to their advantage. It is evident in both of them in the way they treat others that they see themselves as superior. I think this notion is well exemplified in chapter 54, when Pip narrates, “in the infinite meaning of his reply and his boundless confidence in his views, the Jack took one of his bloated shoes off, looked into it, knocked a few stones out of it on the kitchen floor, and put it on again. He did this with the air of a Jack who was so right that he could afford to do anything.” This is said in paragraph 50 of chapter 54. I think it perfectly describes how Pip sees the Jack and how the Jack sees himself, which is similar to Heathcliff.

As I had discussed in my comment for Tuesday’s reading, the ontology of gentility is a major topic within Great Expectations, and I think beyond Great Expectations, it is a major topic in Wuthering Heights as well. Naturally, the two characters that receive focus through this lens will be Pip and Heathcliff, and this is due not only because of their meteoric rise in class status, but in how they represent an aberrance in Victorian culture. To wit, Pip is born an orphan, and is accordingly perceived to be emblematic of a baser culture than those of a higher economic status. Pip’s upbringing is not dissimilar to Heathcliff’s, as Heathcliff is an orphan who is rescued and brought up into a higher class status (although he falls from this as well, but he still rises once more). However, the way these two intersect is not in the fact of their shared rise, but how the two rose. In this rise, an element of criminality is unmistakably mixed, and in each, the mix is different. As towards Pip, his benefactor is a criminal. But for Heathcliff, his criminality is of an altogether different sort, and is never explicitly stated. Such as that, the reader, through Nelly’s view, can read Heathcliff as having been a soldier, and since this is Victorian England, there is no mistake that his soldiering was of the colonial type. This is a different kind of criminality, one that is legally validated, but morally questionable. Again, these are not illegal practices, but they are distinctly separate from what the old money gentry would deem acceptable (even if they themselves had a hand in this honeypot). Such as that, both Pip and Heathcliff feel a certain isolation from the prominent figures of old school gentility in their respective spheres. Pip feels himself in isolation from Estalla, and Heathcliff feels himself in isolation from Edgar Linton, with both feeling less than and unworthy in comparison (although, their manifestations of these feelings are distinctly different). Of course, these are false constructions, as most money is unethical in its origin, but the culture that these two are surrounded by deems the old money acquirement of wealth far more moral than both Pip and Heathcliff’s, even if there is little actual difference. Thus, the intersection of class and culture in both of these books demonstrates how culture is used to create class distinctions between people who have the same materiality. I believe further that both of these books is noting the absurdity of this mask, as well as noting the moral hypocrisy that the culturally adept have in their own economic pursuits.

One connection I made is how Pip and the child factory workers in “The Cry of the Children” can be viewed as similar. Throughout the poem, images of a factory Hell are contrasted with the Heaven of the English countryside, the inferno of industrialism with the bliss of a land-based society. This is much like how Pip feels after he is introduced to Miss. Havisham and Estella’s lifestyle. Forced to learn the trade of a blacksmith he is miserable similar to how the children in the factories feel. They are both abused and work under poor conditions as well. Both of these works are told from the point of view of a child which also seems to be a reoccurring theme in Victorian literature. In “Great Expectations”, because the story is being told from Pip’s perspective, we have a more sympathetic view from young Pip and really feel and connect to his emotions much like the factory children in the poem. Although the works share some similarities, such as the abused child and emotional perspectives,  Pip is able to escape his fate unlike the children of the factory.

Each piece of literature we read from this time period, seems to always touch on social class and how it correlates to the characters. This seems to be a very important part the the development of each story and how the characters interact with each other. When reading this next section of Great Expectations we see another instance where a character of a different social class does not feel like he has the social right to interact or have a dignified relationship with a character of a higher social class. In chapter 43 Pip explains to the reader that he does not fit into the social class image that he feels like he needs to, to be good enough for Estella and her position in society. Naturally, this reminded me of Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights and how he did not feel as though he could belong in that higher social class either. I also found it very interesting that in each of these pieces of literature we see the same kinds of descriptions about each social classes. When Pip is speaking about Estella, he describes her as “Estella in her pride and beauty”, I saw a connection here with Catherine from Withering Heights. The characters of the higher social classes are always either described as beautiful, they have a certain image that they have to uphold. This led be to believe that this is why each of the characters, Estella and Catherine, are described in this manner. In Wuthering Heights, Catherine is described as being “changed” to fit into her class of society better. This connection shows us that there was a “social norm” for these social classes during this time. This is important for us to remember when reading literature from these times because we will be able to make this same connection amongst many other pieces of literature.

After reading the final chapters of “Great Expectations”, I found many connections again between this novel and “Wuthering Heights”. Part of this is I think the time period they were written. Since both novels are from the Victorian Era, they both show signs of inequality, gender roles, and class statuses. My first post on “Great Expectations” was comparing Pip’s older sister to Catharine. After finishing the novel, I can also compare Catharine to Ms.Havisham, and Ms.Havisham to Pip’s older sister. All of these women are extremely confident and powerful in a certain sense. They are powerful in the way they manipulate men and others to get what they want, which is arguable the only way a woman could have any power in the Victorian Era.

Reading the Excerpt from Darwin’s “Origin of Species” made me think about how his theories related to Emily Bronte, and especially her novel , Wuthering Heights. When I really started thinking about it and even did a little research, I realized more and more that Wuthering Heights is almost a Darwinian novel in it’s own way. It was, of course, written before Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” but it presents similar views that were specific of a new, emerging culture, and it presents them in a completely different form. Darwin’s theory and presentation that humans are the same as animals in terms of natural selection almost seems to be mirrored in Wuthering Heights. We see so many characters die because they aren’t strong enough to overcome their illnesses. Edgar would be a perfect example of this. He is always described as being pale, frail and weak, and is often portrayed as the nemesis of Heathcliff, as they both want Catherine. Although Edgar does marry her, he also dies pretty early on in the book, whereas Heathcliff– the clearly stronger-willed, tough guy– lasts much longer into the narrative. This could go to show the Darwinian outlook that the weaker of a species MUST die out in order for a species to advance– including humans.

Between Darwin’s Origin of Species and Huxley’s “Agnosticism and Christianity”, I immediately noticed a difference in tone which contributes to the style of persuasion implemented in the essays. In Darwin’s, the tone is more straightforward and analytical. His statements are supported by statistics and evidence such as when he employs specific numbers of seeds in the section “Geometrical Ratio of Increase”. Most of the information Darwin offers is objective and supported. When he inserts his opinion, he softens it with an opener such as “I believe” or remains firm yet even in his presentation of the information. Huxley on the other hand includes language that is more assertive. He claims that agnostics “have not the courage to declare themselves ‘Infidels'” and that faith is an abomination. The inclusion of this charged language suggests the use of pathos in his argument.

After reading about Darwin, Chambers, Gosse, and Huxley, I couldn’t help but compare the philosophies of Huxley to those of Thomas Carlyle, specifically his theory of natural supernaturalism. Huxley greatly supports Darwinism and Thomas Malthus’s theory of natural selection, and those coincide with Carlyle’s theory. Both of these theories support the idea of letting nature take its course, and letting all things happen for a reason. If one is supposed to raise their class rank, they will, but those who don’t will not because they do not have the means. A main theme that radiates throughout these theorists is of the resentment of religion and the focus on meaning through science. I find this interesting since they were primarily the first theorists to publish their radical ideas against religion and for science.

When reading the assigned readings, I saw many similarities between Huxley’s Agnosticism and Christianity and Gosse’s Father and Son. In Huxley’s writings, he describes the harsh and judgmental encounters between Christians and Agnostics. At one point, he says, “It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.” A common argument that Agnostics bring up is that it is ridiculous to assume to know the truth when there is no evidence to support your claims, and all evidence supports an alternative theory. This concept shows up in Gosse’s autobiography as well. This can be seen when he talks about a commonly held theory at the time, that “God hid the fossils in the rocks in order to tempt geologists into infidelity”. There was no evidence to support this claim, and yet Christians would use these unsubstantiated claims to go against science. In both pieces, agnosticism was used as a sign of being one with science, while for those who were religious, science was a form of heresy, and all scientific findings were God’s way of testing you.